"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
I think that will very much depend on their motives for colonization. The Pilgrims had much different motivation than the English who settled in the West Indies to run sugar plantations. Of course, there is also the possibility of using space to get rid of dissidents or other undesirables, as was done by the British with Australia and the Russians with Siberia. I don't think this is likely to be cost effective, but a government that combines oppression with a desire to minimize bloodshed may think it worthwhile. In this case, the settlers' lives are of minimal importance.
Last edited by swampyankee; 2011-Oct-26 at 08:32 PM. Reason: I've got to proof read before submitting the post
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Getting back to listing new motives:
How about reality TV? You could have a family or small group of East coast ex-pats living in a space station, living off of promotional products shipped from Earth. Endless comedic value as they fumble about using products designed for Earth in zero gee.
@swampyankee:
I have said this before, but I feel predictions about the future often tell more about the authors of said predictions than the future itself.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
I wasn't inferring anything insulting, I was just referring to a popular reality show. I happen to be Italian-American and from New Jersey.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Let's drop the specifics, please. The concept of "reality show in space" can be discussed in general terms without treading on toes (or turning this thread into a pop-culture discussion).
Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.
Why is a frog too?
I would recommend that you word your comments a little less broadly, then. "East coast expats" covers a lot of people who are not idiots on TV.
ETA: pzkpfw beat me to it. I'm dropping the subject.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Now this one's a stretch, but since we were talking about tailored ecologies before, a possible motivation could be to save endangered species. It's based on a SF short story I read years ago (can't recall the title). Creating animal sanctuaries in space is one I'd definitely consider a low-probablility goal, unless we're talking extremely easy space access and a definite post-scarcity society. On the other hand groups like PETA have often gone to extremes in their efforts to save animals, so I suppose someone might decide to fund something like this eventually.
An offshoot of this idea would be to create ecologies for new species; being able to genetically engineer anything you like without worrying about it escaping into the wild and throwing off the natural ecology.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
I've suggested (on this board and elsewhere) that space habitats might be useful as sanctuaries for indigenous species found on colonisable planets.
If we go to Mars and find bacteria there, we could either
1/ leave Mars as a nature reserve for alien bacteria
2/ sterilise the planet and live there, (a pity about the microbes), or
3/ sterilise the planet and live there, and relocate the microbes to orbiting habitats configured to replicate Martian conditions.
A fourth option, trying to coexist on Mars with exotic microbiota, seems inadvisable.
Just thought of a motivation that probably overlaps with several of them: for the challenge. "Not because it is easy, but because it is hard."
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
By removing the indigenous lifeforms to a few small artificial reserves, you could gain large amounts of habitable planetary real estate. However I'm pretty sure that future civilisations will be mostly, or almost completely, based in space.But if you can build closed ecologies in space, why bother with the planet?
It may be the case that they are also exclusively electronic in form as well, so won't need planets at all except for sources of raw materials.
Assuming that's possible, and assuming it applies to all space-based societies, a planet at the bottom of a deep gravity well and atmosphere still doesn't make as much sense as asteroids as a material resource. You can get the same raw materials for far less expenditure of energy.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
Why is it inadvisable?
If humans are going to live on Mars, they have to either terraform it, or remain in pressurized habitats. Terraforming would accomplish your choice 2 pretty much by definition. But considering that any native Martian lifeform has to be anaerobic, conditions humans have to maintain in pressurized habitats would be lethal to these lifeforms. It won't take much effort to keep them out.
Here is a discussion about "what it says about authors" -- specifically about space enthusiasts:
I'd hate to have his email inbox right now ...
Warning: this is Charlie Stross' blog, who is extemely skeptical of space colonization (at least within next few centuries), as are most of the commenters.
Well, there's another potential motive; to prove naysayers wrong.
"I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright